Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingo Jellybean
I think that is a really un-fair statement to make. Your basically saying that The US train harder than all the other athletes in all the other countries participating. And it's not fair to say the US has better athletes either. Thats just a completley one sided statement.
I'm not tryingt o start an arguement, just realise that there other athletes that are "better" than those in the US.
Did you get your calculator out for those statistics? It stands to reason that if you send more athletes to the games, you increase your chances to win medals. With these stats you have effectively proved my point. In the case of Australia (and I'm not sure of the figures exactly), the population is something like 20 million and of those 20 million, what fraction of those are registered athletes? If for example you took the same fraction and applied it to the American population, which is nearly 300 million people the number would be 15 times greater. Of course these are not pinpoint figures but it helps to get the point across.Quote:
So the argument of "more to choose" from doesn't really account. The US simply has better athletes because they train harder, not because there's more of them. While the US has 647 athletes to China's 396, China is actually ahead on the current gold count, but trail in total medal count by only 5 medals. While China only sends 61% of the number of athletes to Athens compared to United States, they certainly have much more than 61% of the medals compared to the United States.
You look back 4 years ago in Sydney, Australia sent close to 500 athletes in Sydney compared to the US who sent about 620 athletes. The US won the total gold and total medal count with 97(39 gold) total medals. Australia only had 58 total medals with 18 gold.
I agree. That is total bull. To say that athletes from the USA train harder than athletes from other countries is an absolute unfounded assumption. The USA has better facilities and more money to throw at sports than any other country in the world! True the Soviets were the only nation that could compete with the United States, but that was nearly 20 years ago. Since the USSR splintered out, the Russians are not a serious challenge to the USA's olympic crown. Once again, I must reiterate, I am not attacking the American Olympic team, if there was more money to throw at sport in other countries, particularly my own, I would be more than happy to witness the benefits of that at a major competition such as the Olympics.Quote:
I think that is a really un-fair statement to make. Your basically saying that The US train harder than all the other athletes in all the other countries participating. And it's not fair to say the US has better athletes either. Thats just a completley one sided statement.
Us team has more medals than Canada which is good because I had been in the states for the past 6 years. I have been in Florida a couple of times(By driving down from Brampton,Ontario,Canada)
I hope the judges are going to be fired after the olympics are over.
Is it a coincidence that the blown gymnastics judging prompted a minor earthquake near Athens? I think not.
The ancient Greek gods are clearly displeased.
You're saying that if you send more athletes, you have a better chance to win more medals. My stats with Australia was that they had 80% of the athletes of the US, but only 1/2 the number of total medals. By your statement about more = more, then shouldn't Australia end up with about 80% of the medals that the US has? It was even played in their own country. You look at China this year, with 396 athletes compared to the US' 647 athletes. Yet they still have the same amount of total gold medals, and we certainly can't say that they have better facilities. They are also not far off the pace of total medals. What bothered me about your statement was how you said more athletes equals more medals, completely ridiculous. There are 4 times the US finished #1 in the medal standings when other countries had more athletes, and of those 4 times(1896, 1984, and two other years I forgot), the Soviet Union and/or Germany sent the most athletes. Remember the famous Jesse Owens olympics? Germany had more athletes but US still won more gold. So that's the assumption I'm trying to kill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Sark
Perhaps I didn't word myself properly, but just because the US simply has better facilities doesn't make them better athletes alone. You have to remember, half of non-US swimmers in this year's olympics train in US facilities. Yet again, the US pulled in more swimming gold and total medals than any other country by far. There are a ton of track and field athletes not in the US who train in US colleges like Clemson and Tennesee Universities. You'd be surprised how many non-US athletes train in the United States, the number is probably close to 33-40%. I'd be happy to research this for you if you like and provide links for proof.Quote:
I agree. That is total bull. To say that athletes from the USA train harder than athletes from other countries is an absolute unfounded assumption. The USA has better facilities and more money to throw at sports than any other country in the world! True the Soviets were the only nation that could compete with the United States, but that was nearly 20 years ago. Since the USSR splintered out, the Russians are not a serious challenge to the USA's olympic crown. Once again, I must reiterate, I am not attacking the American Olympic team, if there was more money to throw at sport in other countries, particularly my own, I would be more than happy to witness the benefits of that at a major competition such as the Olympics.
All I'm saying is that the US has better athletes for the sake of being better, whether it's for the motivation of having their face on a Wheaties box or getting the media attention, I don't know. Not because they have better facilities or more athletes.
GO FRANCIS OBIKWELU
Yeah. He only got silver, but you should be proud of him. He left his country of Nigeria and trained for Portugal because of poor treatment of athletes. Nigeria has had a history of this, and many of its top athletes left the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinity
I agree with you, Dingo. For whatever reason, we get more medals. It could be that the US has a more diverse environment, so they are able to succeed in a larger number of areas. They have a better collection of athletes.
If anyone needs a good laugh:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer...ory?id=1866247
The countries with the most athletes are at the top of the medals table. That is undeniable. If you send more athletes spanning a vast number of events, and your athletes are good and well trained, as most olympic athletes are, you have more chance of winning more medals. You're statistics and precentiles are irrelevant because you don't take in to account all the variables that apply to sporting competition.
I have actually already stated this. They have a bigger and better collection of athletes. See what started off as a compliment to how the USA organises and trains its sporting talent from a very young age, has for some reason turned into an arguement about statistics and percentages which is a frankly circular and boring route.Quote:
I agree with you, Dingo. For whatever reason, we get more medals. It could be that the US has a more diverse environment, so they are able to succeed in a larger number of areas. They have a better collection of athletes.
It's ridiculous to assume that more means more. Didn't I just say that the specific four times that US won most medals and most gold were the times Germany and/or Russia had more athletes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Sark
Statistics back up what I say that more does not equal more. Every country starts athletes off at a young age. You still don't back up your side of the argument of more = more. Completely untrue. It's like you completely ignore statistical facts just for the sake that they don't agree with your view of why the US wins so many medals. You don't specifically state why the statistics are wrong.
For example, you said more athletes means more medals. Again, I've pulled up numerous times where the US won the most medals without nearly having the most athletes(in the 1974 Olympics, Soviet Union had about 80 more athletes than the US, yet pulled in like, 1/3rd or 1/4th the total medals that the US had.)
You still ignore that fact and claim there's more variables in competition...what kind of argument is that? And for your information, China is competing in more events than the United States. So saying that the US sends the most athletes that span the most events is also completely untrue.
I keep bringing up facts and you keep denying them, so I don't know what else to tell you. The reason why this conversation turned into a statistical battle is because stats are history, and the stats disprove your point of view of why the US wins the most medals. If you just research this yourself(I can help you if you like), you would see that what you've said is a completely ignorant assumption of United States athletes. It's total disrespect to the US athletes saying more is more. I don't deny the US has the best facilities, but when 33-40% of non-US Olympic athletes train in the US, what can you say about that? You can't start claiming that the facilities are the reason why the US wins the most medals because now other countries are starting to use the US' facilities too.
I know a lot of countries are jealous(though many won't admit and I'm not accusing you of it) of the US' success. I probably would be too if I were to live in another country, but if you're going to make outrageous statements like that, at least have the courtesy to defend your arguments and not discount the facts that I have presented.
Well he has a point. More means more of a chance. There's almost an American, Australian and Chinese athlete in almost every heat of every event. Other countries can't even afford to send that many.
On a side note, the women's volleball has really gone down. In terms of standard of dress - camera angles and zooms. Plus the additional DJ music and exotic dancers :rolleyes2
More doesn't necessarily mean more of a chance. Often when you have the most athletes in a certain event, you often don't have a clear cut favorite to advance out of an event. China actually has more male gymnasts than the US, but that certainly didn't give them more of a chance to win the gold medal in team gymnastics...the US were favored slightly to win it by virtue of their victory at the 2003 World Championship. I wasn't comparing the US to a country like Mongolia...of course they can't compete with the US. But for those who can compete against the US like Australia or Great Britain, more certainly doesn't mean more of a chance. Just because the US has 300 million doesn't mean they have a better chance to win. I mean India and china both have over 1 billion in their country, but granted they do not have the facilities like the US. And not all 300 million in the US are athletes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinoabella
But if you go back to a time when the Soviet Union had more athletes and were actually stronger than the US(in terms of military and economics), you would notice that the US won the most medals by far...even against a country that was economically more wealthier with more athletes and a greater population.
As for women's volleyball, I never watch anyways. They have fantastic athletic bodies, but it's usually not enough to keep an audience, especially to that of an average sports fan. It's nice that they're wearing skimpy clothes, but if that's what attracts viewers, then I can't blame them. It's all marketing.
By Zeus! The gods have spoken! *validates the thread with his post* :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Strider
On further review, Paul Hamm did win that medal.
The Korean gymnast should have lost .2 points off his score...so that means someone was snuffed out of a bronze medal. I think they mentioned something about having only 6 holds total or was it 5? But anyways, that medal Paul Hamm won was legitimate.